Why Furries Need Conservatives

## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]

## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?

## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.

## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.

## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.

## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called a Novelty Aversion.

## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.

## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]

## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.

## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online.

## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->

## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.

## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.

## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.

## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.

## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.

## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. Those who are high in 

They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they often seek to be.

If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point.